Style of play and rake
Posted by GasPanic
Posted by
GasPanic
posted in
Low Stakes
Style of play and rake
The general perception of micro PLO games is that they play very loose and passive. But that is not the whole truth. There are a lot of regulars (particularly at the deep, ante games) who fancy themselves as LAGs and think the way to dominate the table is to show a lot of aggression. Many of them from Scandinavia but other countries as well.
I recently saw a Supernova having a go at another player who was playing rather tightly and accused him of only ever showing up with strong holdings and therefore not inviting action. First of all he's kind of missing the point as it is his job to adjust to his opponent and also he is ignoring the big downside his style of play (he's running at something like 30/20/10) has - and that is rake. Which he's paying a lot of and it doesn't seem to be going well for him when he plays microstakes as Supernova.
So I had a look through my PT4 database to check the rake stats on some of the players. When I say rake I mean 'actual rake paid' ('winner takes all', attributed rake on PT4).
First of all my own (I play 23/17/4):
PLO10: ~13 bb/100
PLO10 Ante: ~17.5 bb/100
PLO5: ~15 bb/100
That seems like a lot but with PlatinumStar on Stars and the big winrates possible it's not that bad.
Now let's have a look at three regular players I have big samples on:
PLO 10 Ante:
34/21/9: 29 bb/100
55/31/11: 34 bb/100
35/22/19: 35 bb/100
And now two examples of players whose stats don't even look that much out of line apart from the high 3-bet:
PLO 5:
25/17/11: 28 bb/100
24/21/10: 19 bb/100
Obviously how you play postflop is important as well but we can see a correlation between preflop aggression and looseness and rake paid. I see so much stupid inflating of pots by players who should know better it's unreal. Stuff like squeezing oop because the hand is double-suited and connected or any AAxx.
I'm sure they feel like the dog's bollocks when they 3-bet me for the 3rd time with dubious holdings oop and take it down with a pot-sized continuation bet but in the end I think none of them are winning. Whereas I am.
Finally let's go to the most extreme example I know of. This is a player who everyone playing PLO5 and 10 should be familiar with. He plays 93/69/50 over a large sample and he pays (you better sit down) 75(!) bb/100 in rake. Now I can't imagine he's playing to make money but playing 4-6 tables every day he's technically a regular. But even if he were the most skillful player on earth it would be impossible for him to win because of the rake. That's pretty extraordinary.
The bottom line is you should really think twice before you inflate the pot at micro stakes. First of all fold equity is generally lower and most importantly the insane rake can more than negate any potential increase in EV making a sub-optimal play (in a vaccum) actually the better option sometimes.
Loading 21 Comments...
Are those numbers for Zoom or regular tables?
If they are mixed, it´d be interesting to see the difference in rake.
I play these stakes regularly, but zoom only and agree with your statements completely.
With a VPIP<20 and the leaving out of spots that might be slightly +EV but require to put in stakes
I pay less than 10bb/100 Rake (attributed).
These are all for regular tables.
As I rarely play zoom I only have a meaningful sample on myself. Rake at PLO5 drops to 12bb/100.
Very interesting numbers.
Yeah, interesting to see these figures.
Regarding that supernova slating people not giving action... there is not much fold equity to be had in the Microstakes (25plo) . Taking a very solid strategy just looking for good spots to value bet and making solid bluffs where people's ranges completely miss is the right way IMO.
Coupling the player pool and their average tendencies with those rake figures, I dont think you can argue against playing good solid, abc poker.
Such useful article. Thank you.
Great stuff, GasPanic. I know the rake is high, but I never looked at it like this. Thankfully my stats are pretty much like yours so far, so I'm not paying top-dollar for my playing style to Pokerstars. They should really consider looking at the rake at the lower stakes. Just too brutal IMO.
Thank you for this, Gas.
A have counted that my HU rake is 40bb/100 on PLO10
It looks to me that HU is very unprofitable on that stakes
I have to bump this again as it does my head in.
Especially at the deep, ante tables at PLO10 I've noticed there are a lot of regulars who play extremely laggy (45/35/15+) and the rake they pay is astronomical (higher than 50 bb/100 hands at times). That means nothing less than that it is impossible for them to be winning players no matter how skilled they are. Think about that for a second.
I don't know if these players don't notice that or just don't care which I find hard to believe as they are regulars who play a lot of tables every day. Pick your spots at the ante tables and don't get involved in stupid preflop warfare. Your rake will also go up due to the general looseness and much bigger pots in these games (mine is still below 20bb though) but these tables are very profitable nonetheless.
Just don't listen to anyone telling you to play LAG at these stakes - it's a safe way to ruin.
Eh, whilst you make a lot of valid points, I'm not sure if I fully agree with you. In the end it's all about the post-rake winrate, and if laggy style gives you a better winrate after the rake, we shouldn't be concerned about how much we get raked. This is especially true in deep ante tables - your edge in these games can be so huge that the rake you pay hardly matters sometimes.
Let's say, if you can play like 18/12 and make a lot of money by stacking off with a stronger range, by all means do that. But if you can make even more money by playing 30/22, you should go for it even if that means you have to pay more rake. Of course this depends on a lot of things, but I just don't think tightening up for the sake of paying less rake is the optimal approach, unless that also leads to a better winrate.
Another way of putting this would be: rake is gonna be steep no matter what you do at micro/low stakes, so don't worry about it too much and try to play your best game and move up as soon as possible. Of course I'm not saying that you should go crazy with preflop battle or something, but you shouldn't nit it up either.
FYI, I have been playing 50 and 100 PLO for quite a while with a decent winrate of 7-8 EVbb/100 (20bb+/100 at deep ante tables), and LAGish approach has been working relatively well for me. I guess my stats are something like 28/20 at normal tables, and 35/25 or something at deep ante tables. In all fairness, paying the extra rake of 3-4bb/100 isn't a big deal if you can create an edge by doing so.
Thanks Tom!
I think alot of this is true, although take into account supernova players get 40% rakeback + some players will want to move up in stakes.
yeah I've replied to several threads in the forum, and I'm of the belief that most marginal hands can not be profitably played below plo100 due to rake. You're just donating money to the site. I think finding any reason to be as tight as possible until you move out of the rake traps is just common sense. Note I didn't say passive, just tight.
edit: should add that I consider anything below 30vpip to be on the tight side. so a 25/20 style is fairly tight imo, but might be considered laggier by some nits (lol).I crushed small stakes for a fairly long period last year playing super loose and limping a wide range of holdings from every position. My postflop skills were good enough to overcome the ridiculous rake I was paying (mostly due to 5 years of being a HE pro prior to my PLO beginnings). But my shots at midstakes were a blood bath of leaking money. I started tightening up my ranges from every position waiting for very obvious opportunities to exploitatively open them and suddenly the game not only became easier, but I had the preflop range foundation to compete with competent winners at midstakes.
I'm sure you already understood everything I've said above, but figured I'd lay it out for other RIO low stakes guys that might have some interest in the discussion.
How does this apply to lower stakes (<50nl/100nl) for no limit hold'em 6 max? Or does it not?
"but yeah, playing TAG will never be a mistake."
So, playing LAG is about getting more small edges to up our winrate?
Then to me, it doesn't make much sense to play laggy at lowerstakes, where there is plenty to be won by fish and bad regulars just by playing good, solid poker. Or am I missing something? (probably am)
You also get yourself into some interesting spots with marginal hands which is a good learning experience and it's always best to learn in smaller games against weaker opponents than to start doing it against good, higher-stakes regs! I'm a big believer that the micros are where we should start learning to play well, not just a hurdle to jump as quickly as possible.
I know that it's all about post-rake winrate, that was the point of my post. If I pay 15bb/100, and a LAG pays 50bb/100 he needs to be a 35bb/100 better player than I am, just to reach my winrate! And without trying to sound arrogant, I don't think that's possible. Especially considering how atroucious some of these players are.
I know that rake become less and less important the higher the stakes become, but I'm talking about PLO10 here.
Now obviously he could be f***ing awful, but in theory he's not making a mistake if he can genuinely play these hands and show a profit on them.
You talk a lot about playing LAG in position Tom and I totally agree with that. But I'm talking more about the stupid pot inflating and preflop warfare.
Something you quite often see at the ante tables is raise, call, squeeze, more calls and you frequently end up with preflop pots close to 100bb. Then you see the squeezer show up with 9 high or AT22ds and scratch your head. And since everybody's playing loose stacks are flying in postflop as well. This is just suicide at PLO10. Think about it: If you pay 50bb/100 in rake you need to win 50bb/100 pre rake just to break even. How many players do that?
Be the first to add a comment